reSee.it - Related Video Feed

This isn't a place where you can just spin tales and deceive people. This is the news, and we tell the truth. It's alarming that a man who has struggled to denounce white supremacists is in this position. Remember when he said there were very fine people on both sides? Those words have power and meaning. When I speak, the world listens, including neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Why can't I denounce them or reject their support? I'm not talking about neo-Nazis and white nationalists; they should be condemned totally. What's your response to my saying Liz Cheney should be fired? I keep speaking in extreme terms about the potential dangers to the country if I don't win in November. I've even used words like "bloodbath".

Speaker 0 claims that someone tells edgy jokes about the holocaust and cookies to appear cool. Speaker 0 says that the next step is to declare oneself the true conservative, not a "bunch of masturbating losers who live in your mother's basement." Speaker 1 states that someone was making holocaust jokes. Speaker 1 asks if Nick Fuentes, described as a "weird little gay kid in his basement in Chicago," is participating in a super PAC to bump off Joe Kent.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of weakness and creating more "Austin Metcalfs." Speaker 0 demands Speaker 1 condemn his son's killer and the culture that caused it. Speaker 2 tells Speaker 1 he has been "submitted" and criticizes him for talking about Trump, stating, "When you do that, my name is Griswold." Speaker 2 accuses Speaker 1 of supporting degenerates who are murdering white people and claims Speaker 1 is no more of a patriarch than he is. Speaker 2 asks where Speaker 1 was on January 6th. Speaker 2 states the solution is to help people where they are weak, particularly young black males. Speaker 2 says Speaker 1's response to a grieving father is that he's weak. Speaker 2 threatens to run against Speaker 1 for Senate in Florida as a Republican. Speaker 2 claims Speaker 1's behavior is why "we're in the situation where we are." Speaker 2 says he came to give Speaker 1 a message from a father. Speaker 2 accuses Speaker 1 of being a black man trying to shut him down.

Congress has little power and is offended that the speaker won't appear before a partisan committee. The speaker believes the real story goes back to 2016, with attempts to interfere with the election and overthrow the Trump administration. The speaker stands for fair trade, securing borders, and ending endless wars. Special interests in Washington can't make money under Trump, so they weaponize the justice system to prevent his return to the White House.

Speaker 0 claims Kash Patel lacks the character and integrity to be FBI director, asserting his only qualification is a willingness to cross moral, ethical, and legal lines when others refused. They state Patel is a sycophant who will misuse the bureau's resources and weaponize it against political opponents instead of protecting public safety. Speaker 1 alleges Adam Schiff is the "worst criminal in congress in the last two hundred and fifty years" and met with a whistleblower, Charmela, while publicly denying knowledge of the situation. They claim Schiff led the impeachment trial of President Trump after manufacturing false accusations with Charmela. They assert Schiff lied to set up a presidential impeachment and should be investigated for his interactions with Charmela. They state Schiff, who manufactured evidence with Charmela, was the prosecutor in the case against Trump, which is a conflict of interest.

The discussion centers on the way lawmakers reference religion in foreign policy and whether that approach is effective. Speaker 0 asks the audience how many think a respected lawmaker like Ted Cruz uses the Bible to justify aid to Israel, even if he doesn’t know the verse, and whether that is the best approach. Speaker 1 responds by referencing Ted Cruz’s Genesis twelve three, and notes that many find that off-putting when contrasted with the New Testament, specifically Paul’s writings about the new flesh not being the same as the people in the old covenant. Speaker 1 asks, “Yes. Romans nine?” and agrees with the sentiment. Speaker 0 then asks Speaker 1 if they are Catholic, to which Speaker 1 replies that they are converting Catholic from Judaism, revealing that they are ethnically Jewish. The exchange confirms Speaker 1’s Jewish ethnicity. Speaker 0 brings up concerns about APAC, asking if Speaker 1 has concerns about APAC. Speaker 1 confirms that they do. Speaker 0 notes that some people tell them that criticizing APAC equates to being anti-Semitic, asking whether this is true. Speaker 1 calls that notion ridiculous and says it’s great to have concern for one’s country. The conversation shifts to APAC’s influence. Speaker 0 presents a characterization (as a possible summary of Speaker 1’s view) that APAC represents a form of prioritization that cuts in line, away from the American people. Speaker 0 asks whether this is a fair summary. Speaker 1 answers affirmatively, “100%.” Finally, they articulate the core idea: the public votes and are citizens, but a separate group is described as receiving higher priority for whatever reasons. Speaker 1’s agreement underscores a shared concern that APAC’s influence creates a prioritization that bypasses the ordinary American electorate.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

Speaker 0 argues that Israel, through its lobby, has manifested so much power over the United States Congress that the country is embroiled in wars they believe they should not be in. He states that whenever Israel is mentioned, someone claims you’re an anti-Semite, and he contends that policies in the Middle East have been one-sided and subjective, leading to many enemies and the importing of terrorists as a consequence. He asserts: “Israel through their lobby has manifested total power of the congress of the United,” and expresses a concern that taxpayers and the citizens of the United States should control their government, not a foreign entity. Speaker 1 challenges these assertions, saying: “You did. That’s not what you said. You said they’re controlling our foreign policy. They’re controlling our domestic policy.” He presses back, stating: “That quote, they are influencing and the sole control of influencing of our domestic policy is an absurdity. It sounds like you are a kook.” He explicitly disputes the idea that Israel controls the Congress and domestic policy. Speaker 0 clarifies, “I believe they control the senate and the house foreign affairs committee.” Speaker 1 repeats that claim as insane, prompting Speaker 0 to insist: “I’m not suggesting it. I served in congress for seven…,” implying a longer service and experience to support his concerns, though the sentence is cut off. The exchange centers on claims of disproportionate Israeli influence in U.S. federal policy, the objectivity of Middle East policy, and the contention that foreign lobbies, particularly related to Israel, have undue power over congressional decision-making, contrasted with direct rebuttals labeling such claims as irrational or insane.

Charlie Kirk is accused of critiquing Israel’s actions in Gaza during this summit, with claims that he is supposed to be a Christian conservative. A number of participants argue that critiques of Israel are being framed as anti-Semitism, while others emphasize that disagreeing with the current Israeli government or questioning AIPAC does not automatically make someone anti-Semitic. One participant says the repeated “anti-Semitism” labeling is being used as an excuse to “spout anti-Semitism.” They argue that people treat Israel as sacred while demanding reduced involvement, referencing uncertainty about “Messiah” and “Reminds me of the CIA.” Another participant responds that an ally should treat an ally differently, and claims they are told that criticizing AIPAC is anti-Semitic. A participant states they have “concerns about AIPAC,” describing it as a prioritization problem: citizens vote and pay attention to American interests, but “a separate group gets higher priority.” Another participant says the entirety of the idea of a PAC is to represent a group, but criticizes allowing a group they claim “doesn’t even represent American interests” to influence representatives. They also claim that only about 20 members across the Senate and House are fully doing the work of the American people. The discussion includes examples of anti-Semitic accusations being dismissed. One participant says they do not hate Jews, and argues that defending a nation should not be treated as hatred. Another participant compares the dynamic to how “racism” is used—if people disagree, they are called names without proof, based on inability to “prove them wrong.” On Israel aid, a participant says the U.S. sends almost $4 billion to Israel “every year,” totaling $319 billion adjusted to inflation since 1948, and says this makes them upset. They argue the money could be better spent supporting an economy at home, including homes, rather than military strikes. They respond to a hypothetical five-year plan for Israel to decouple from USAID by saying Israel could be self-reliant, with balanced budgets and a sovereign wealth fund, and that such a transition would make people think higher of Israel and stop constant discussion. Religious references are raised, including Genesis 12.3 and Romans 9-6, and the conversation notes someone describing being ethnically Jewish and having concerns about AIPAC. A final exchange asks whether canceling Tucker would change anti-Semitism levels; one participant says it would increase because supporters would be treated as anti-Semites by association. The conversation ends with a claim that there is an “earthquake” coming on the issue that others do not believe, and urges hearing it “from people themselves.”

The speaker decries a foreign leader as the "woke right," saying he is censoring Americans on camera. He notes this leader runs a country of 9,000,000 people "totally dependent on our tax dollars to exist" and claims that anyone who opposes more aid to Israel or opposing war with Iran is not simply mistaken or wrong; "that person is a Nazi, part of the woke Reich, a Nazi." The only fix, he says, is "preventing Americans from hearing the other side." He adds, "we push congress to force a TikTok sale," with "TikTok" repeated. He presses, "we need to talk to Elon." He maintains, "Free speech is central to the entire idea of America," contrasting with the foreign leader who "is saying Americans don't have that right" and will pressure Elon Musk to censor x "because it bothers Israel?"

One speaker believes people should be allowed to have differing views on immigration and debate the merits of the Israeli lobby's power. However, Pat Buchanan discredits this conversation because he gives the sense that he has another agenda related to personal dislike, conspiracies, and the belief that Jews are a sinister force trying to affect American politics. Another speaker questions if a certain individual exclusively targets people in the same group and makes Holocaust jokes. This speaker suggests this individual is like David Duke, who would endorse their shows. They believe David Duke is part of a campaign to discredit people on the right, and that Nick Fuentes is doing the same. They clarify that this doesn't mean everything he says is false, that he isn't talented, or that he's a bad person, but that he is clearly part of a campaign to discredit non-crazy right voices.

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 to respond to an accusation that Nancy Pelosi became rich through insider trading. Speaker 1 responded that the accusation is ridiculous. Speaker 1 supports stopping members of Congress from trading stocks, not because anyone is doing anything wrong, but to instill confidence in the American people. Speaker 1 has no concern about investments made over time. Speaker 1's husband is into investments, but it has nothing to do with insider information. Speaker 1 stated that the president is projecting because he has his own exposure.

Speaker 0 claims the Department of Government Efficiency found hundreds of billions in fraud, but Speaker 1 denies any fraud was found. Speaker 0 alleges Social Security is paying people over 220 years old, which Speaker 1 disputes. Speaker 1 criticizes Trump's anti-immigrant stance and calls Musk a "thug." Speaker 0 defends Trump, suggesting he might be the greatest president in modern American history. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 "deluded" for supporting Trump, characterizing Trump as rude, nasty, and racist. Speaker 0 accuses others of being in a cult, claiming they try to stop people from talking to those with different ideas. Speaker 0 says things got "hot" and troopers asked him to leave. Speaker 0 then shares the speech he planned to give, emphasizing that all are Americans with First Amendment rights and should unite to eliminate corruption.

The speaker believes 95-99% of Congress should be tried for treason for allowing Israel and its money to control everything in the United States. They claim the U.S. does not have control over itself because Congress is controlled by a foreign nation that does not have America's best interests in mind. The speaker cites a vote to cut $500 million from going to Israel, alleging it goes towards bombing kids, and claims 455 people voted to keep it, while only six voted against it. Marjorie Taylor Greene is praised for opposing the funding. The speaker asserts Israel controls the United States 100% and suggests people should investigate how much money each congressperson has taken from APAC, which they describe as an Israeli funding service. They also allege most members of Congress are probably on the Epstein list.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of "white guilt" and weakness, claiming he is creating more "Austin Metcalfs" by not condemning his son's killer and the culture that caused it. Speaker 1 counters that Speaker 0 has been "submitted" and is weak. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's patriotism, asking where he was on January 6th. He accuses Speaker 0 of "murdering white people" and being a degenerate. Speaker 1 claims Speaker 0 is using Austin Metcalf's name for t-shirts and propaganda. Speaker 1 states he will run for Senate in Florida as a Republican and defeat Speaker 0. He accuses Speaker 0 of trying to shut down a white man and trying to raise money. Speaker 1 says he came to give Speaker 0 a message from a father.

Speaker 0 raises a question about accountability for Israel and mentions Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with Mossad. Speaker 1 asks, without specifics, whether there are forces that tried to influence him to stop what he’s doing now. Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, and they were upset because he said no. He states: “I’m not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever,” and “Israel’s doing just fine. We don’t need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.”

Speaker 0 says, "powerful institutions are at play here, and there's a coordinated effort to spread this parasitic ideology," and asks, "Are you willing to name the group behind us? Because behind all these institutions, there seems to be a Cohen, a Berg, a Stein." He then asks, "What are your thoughts on the Jewish influence about on gender ideology?" Speaker 1 replies, "So you're you're Am I gonna do anything about the Jews is what you're asking me? No." Okay. Do I need to dignify that with a further response, do think?" He adds, "Or And Jewish donors, they have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of decoupling to do, because Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal quasi Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits." "This is a beast created by secular Jews."

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

Speaker 3 said he has been told that criticizing AIPAC makes him anti-Semitic. Speaker 1 called that “ridiculous.” Speaker 3 said it feels good to have concern for one’s country and asked whether AIPAC represents a “cutting in line of prioritization” away from the American people—meaning that although Americans vote and are citizens, a separate group gets higher priority. Speaker 0 responded that the point of a PAC is to represent a group, but said there is a “huge problem” with allowing a group that does not represent American interests to influence people who are supposed to represent Americans. Speaker 0 said he has previously stated that he thinks only “like 20 representatives between Senate and the House” fully do the work of the American people without the interests of some group pulling their sway. Speaker 1 said that “over since 1948” the amount amounts to “$319 billion adjusted to inflation” and argued that there are multiple things the money could have been spent on at home instead of military strikes for Israel. Speaker 1 said the money could have been better allocated toward supporting an economy that would help the current generation afford homes. Speaker 3 asked what else would improve views if Israel’s government presented a “five-year plan to decouple from us aid,” including moving toward self-reliance, and noted that Israel is a rich country that has balanced its budget and money in a sovereign wealth fund. He asked whether people would think more highly of Israel if it stopped relying on U.S. aid and if the issue were talked about less. Speaker 2 agreed that people should be less focused on labeling, saying that the word “racism” is used when there is disagreement and that “we just have to call them a name.” Speaker 2 said he does not think people are anti-Semitic, arguing that people “just can’t agree with them” and can’t “prove them wrong,” so they “throw a word out” like “anti-Semitic” because they think the U.S. should stop sending money there. Speaker 3 said, “thank you” and noted that some people he tells “must get more aggressive.”

Speaker 1 questions a congresswoman about taxpayer-funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants and condemns violent riots in Los Angeles. Speaker 0 does not answer. Speaker 0 then challenges others to harass him as they allegedly harassed the congresswoman. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 to condemn the violent riots in Los Angeles. Speaker 0 declines to answer and asks who Speaker 1 is. Speaker 1 attempts to continue the conversation, but Speaker 0 walks away. Speaker 1 then asks Speaker 0 if he has a foreskin.

A speaker questioned why a congressperson believes President Trump is above the law and why they haven't spoken out against the dismantling of the federal government by President Trump and Elon Musk. The speaker urged the congressperson to stand up for what's right and do their job. The congressperson responded that journalists constantly ask questions, but their answers are not published. To address this, the congressperson publishes statements and speeches on their website, "the scoop," because they cannot rely on news outlets to report what they say.

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 to publicly address an issue larger than Austin, accusing him of "white guilt" and weakness that is creating more "Austin Metcalfs." Speaker 0 urges Speaker 1 to condemn his son's killer and the culture that caused it. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of being degenerate, murdering white people, and not being patriotic. Speaker 1 claims that silence has not helped and asks where Speaker 0 was on January 6th. Speaker 1 states that Speaker 0 is only condemning his solution to help people where they're weak, particularly young black males. Speaker 1 says he will run for Senate in Florida as a Republican and defeat Speaker 0. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of wanting to shut down a white man. Speaker 1 states he came to give a message from his father. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of trying to shut him down because he is a black man.

The speaker condemns Ian Carroll for making videos that claim Israel is behind conspiracies about Red Lobster, Applebee's, and Burger King, and for a live stream asking, “Where are you Nick? … Why are you with them?” He asks where the evidence is and notes the tendency to attribute almost every event to Israel, stating, “the heuristic seems to be Israel is behind literally everything,” past and future, which he calls ridiculous. He points to a September 7 tweet where Carroll said Charlie Kirk is “working for the Jews that killed Jesus,” and contrasts it with Carroll’s certainty on September 11 that Israel killed him to silence him, questioning what changed in those four days and suggesting Carroll may have ESP or telepathy. He accuses Carroll of grifting, intellectual laziness, and dishonesty, and refuses to be pulled into blaming Israel for killing the number one Israel defender in America. The speaker asserts personal history and credibility, saying, “I’ve been over here. I was at Charlottesville” in 2017, and that in 2019 he led the Gruyper war against Charlie Kirk, labeling Kirk as an “Israel shill.” He claims that from Turning Point’s founding in 2012 to today, the organization has been “owned by Israel and served Israel.” He recounts a June text in which Charlie Kirk told Dinesh D’Souza, “Nick Fuentes is vermin,” and notes the ongoing fight against him for six years, including Kirk’s August statement calling him “anti Semitic garbage” and his refusal to debate. The speaker describes Charlie Kirk’s inner circle and media connections: Kirk’s right-hand man Andrew Colvin comes from Salem Media, a Christian Zionist outlet aligned with Israel, with Melissa Strait having connections to Salem and Prager University and IDF unit 12082. He notes Colvin led a “struggle session about Israel” after a Turning Point SAS conference in July. He claims that when Israel bombed Qatar in contravention of Trump’s foreign policy, Kirk invited Ben Shapiro to present Israel’s position, while Kirk acted as moderator, and on the day Kirk “was shot,” he prepared to defend Israel with his rabbi at Provo as he drafted a book on the Jewish Sabbath. The speaker emphasizes that the person accused of fighting Israel was “the guy that was murdered,” and expresses pity for those who would believe that. He asserts, “I’m right here where I’ve always been, following the facts, following the money, looking at the information,” claiming to be light years ahead of Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, and rejecting the idea that their ideology is about Netanyahu or Israel’s foreign policy, concluding, “No, sorry. Absolutely not. That’s totally ridiculous.”

Speaker 0 rails against dissent: “Like, if you disagree with me, fine. If you think Israel killed Charlie Kirk and then vanished beneath the trap door and flew to Tuba City on a private jet, fine.” He adds, “But then people start to say, you disagree with me? You're you got the memo.” He asserts, “every event that happens in America or the world is the doing of Israel,” and says if you disagree, “you got the call[.]” He notes, “you’re out,” and, “They will. And they will.” He proclaims, “I can’t wait for the apology forms” and, “cannot wait to humiliate you more, because more than anything, what I love is humiliate people who are wrong. I live for it actually.” He concludes, “So please, please, I can’t wait to never speak to those people again.”